Australian High Court to issue Cardinal Pell decision next week

CNA Staff, Apr 2, 2020 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- The High Court of Australia will hand down its decision in the case of Cardinal George Pell next week. The justices are considering Cardinal Pell’s petition for special leave to appeal his 2018 conviction for sexual abuse.

The court announced Thursday that a decision would be issued by the seven justices in the case Pell v. The Crown on April 7 at 10 am. By the time the decision is handed down, the bench will have considered the cardinal’s case for just over three weeks, after hearing two days of arguments in the case last month.

Pell is seeking to appeal the 2-1 split decision of the Court of Appeal in Victoria to sustain his 2018 conviction on five counts of child sexual abuse over two separate instances.

The High Court heard arguments from Pell’s legal team and from state prosecutors March 11-12, after which the justices reserved judgment.

At issue in the appeal is whether the jury that convicted Pell in December 2018 of sexually abusing two choristers could have plausibly found Pell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, after having heard the case presented by the prosecutors and the defense mounted by Pell’s lawyers.

The High Court could quash the guilty verdict against Pell, uphold it, or send the case back to the Victoria appellate court which upheld the conviction last year.

During the March hearings, Pell’s lead lawyer, Brett Walker SC, outlined a case for appeal grounded in the findings of Victoria Justice Mark Weinberg, whose dissenting opinion at the Victoria Court of Appeal in August found that the cardinal had been convicted on the evidence of a single alleged victim, despite the exculpatory testimony of as many as 20 witnesses, and that the jury could not have found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Pell was convicted of committing acts of sexual assault on two choir boys simultaneously for five to six minutes in the cathedral sacristy, while he was fully vested after Mass. Walker suggested that would be practically impossible.

Walker also pointed out changes and inconsistencies in the narrative of the sole witness-accuser to give evidence against Pell. The second alleged victim died in 2014, before the trial began; before his death he told his mother that he was not a victim of sexual abuse.

Australian state of Victoria’s chief prosecutor, Kerri Judd, was grilled by the justices, who took issue with the state’s handling of key pieces of evidence in the case against Pell, most especially the evidence of Monsignor Charles Portelli, an aide to Pell.

Portelli’s testimony placed the cardinal outside his Melbourne cathedral at the time he was alleged to be sexually abusing two boys in the cathedral’s sacristy, on the Sunday in 1996 when that crime is alleged to have taken place.

At one point during the hearing Thursday, Judd conceded the Portelli’s testimony undermined the allegations of the prosecution, but urged the High Court justices to look past that fact in its deliberations, citing some inconsistencies in Portelli’s recollection of the Sunday, now 24 years ago, in question.

Judd told justices that “I do accept that when you look at Monsignor Portelli on his own, we may not be able to negate [reasonable doubt] to the standard we need to. But in my submission, when you look at the whole of the evidence, it does.”

The justices also considered the actions of the three-judge panel of the Victoria Court of Appeals, which upheld Pell’s conviction August last year. The Victoria judges chose to watch a video of the single victim-accuser’s testimony instead of reading the transcript. Pell’s legal team argued that this made them unable to dispassionately weigh the “reasonableness” of the jury being able to exclude reasonable doubt on the basis of his evidence alone.

Chief Justice Susan Kiefel said “It’s very difficult to say how [the video] affected an intermediate appellate court judge in terms of how they read the transcript.”

“That’s why you really shouldn’t do it [watch the video] … unless there is a forensic reason to do it. To what extent is this court to determine the extent to which the court of appeal was influenced by the video?” Kiefel asked.

Whatever the final outcome of Pell’s criminal appeal, the cardinal will likely face a canonical proceeding, overseen by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, soon after the Australian case reaches a definitive resolution.

Pell has told friends he remains faithful to God’s providence and committed to living his time in prison in the spirit of a monastic retreat.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


  1. I was reading about the Lindy Chamberlain case, because while I knew the basics I wanted to check on the details. At her website is an excerpt from a book about it, which among other things analyzed the reason for the conviction. A lot of it sounds familiar.

    “But what has to be faced is that neither forensic science nor the law failed in the Chamberlain case as systems. Rather the practitioners are to blame for failing to abide by the principles of their vocations. Scientific guesses replaced experimental tests, tests lacked adequate controls, the onus of proof was reversed, the presumption of innocence was forgotten . . .

    “The answer is complex, and includes the general disbelief in the dingo story, the Chamberlains’ membership in a sect that is branded a cult by mainline Christians, the discomfort of secular Australians with such overt Christian piety as the Chamberlains displayed, the purposefully prejudicial reporting of the media, the perception of Lindy and Michael as cold and sinister, and the timorous response to such forces by political, religious and judicial leaders.

    “…Ultimately, the cause of the injustice inflicted upon the Chamberlains comes down, as author John Bryson observed, to one word—bigotry. The failures in the legal system, the multitudinous forensic errors, the police’s blind determination to obtain a conviction, the public’s hostility, and the media’s irresponsible reporting all resulted from a prejudicial disbelief in the dingo story and a ready acceptance of the Chamberlains’ guilt.”


    “Today, the High Courtgranted special leave to appealagainst a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoriaandunanimouslyallowed the appeal. The High Courtfound that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt with respect to each of the offencesfor which he was convicted,and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place. “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.